On Apr 22, 2009, at 3:17 PM, 3-dB Networks wrote:
> Matt,
>
> How does what you say in the first paragraph make Aperto not viable?
>
I don't think anything from my first paragraph makes Aperto not
viable. I am not sure I even like the term viable. I wouldn't suggest
Aperto or recommend them a
gt;
> I'm asking for vendor recommendations and WISP experiences from people
> that have actually deployed Wimax in the 3650Mhz space. The area I'm
> looking to serve wouldn't be cost effective to serve via Wifi.
>
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>> Those of us operators
Those of us operators who actually have experience in the field with
the gear tend to avoid posting to threads about WiMAX because the
threads quickly devolve. I suggest you read the archives of this
mailing list. To summarize though; operators who use WiMAX like it and
think the technology
Mike Tataris
Specialized Account Manager - WSG
Phone: 404-649-1521
Cell: 678-478-9132
Fax: 800-329-6882
Email: mike.tata...@sprint.com
On Apr 20, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Does anyone have a contact at Sprint wholesale.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>
Except of course that isn't professional. And, while I have many times
wanted to complain about some other WISP in public I won't because it
isn't professional. What would have been better for Bob in the first
place and for the rest of us always; would be simply for each other to
treat thei
You want a pseudowire appliance that creates a T1 across an Ethernet
link. Rad, Telco, and Dragonwave all make good products at reasonable
prices. I have some extra ones if you want a deal.
-Matt
On Mar 25, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Forbes Mercy wrote:
> I have a customer who wants to use our towers
On Mar 20, 2009, at 3:50 PM, rea...@muddyfrogwater.us wrote:
> Mike Hammett and I both are watching huge amounts of investment
> being poured
> into WIMAX equipment that's designed to meet last year's bandwidth
> model and
> asking the same question.When are the WIMAX folks going to
> r
On Mar 20, 2009, at 1:57 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> 2 megs is yesterday's news.
>
> U-Verse is 18/1.5
> FiOS is 50/20
> Charter has 60/5
> Comcast has 50/10
>
> 2 megs is 36 times faster than 56k. Charter is 30 times faster than
> that.
>
> Why is the wireless world happy with being 10 years be
Might want to get a license for that.
-Matt
On Mar 20, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> I have a single 3.65 Mikrotik system (RB411 with XR3-3.7 cards)
> feeding three remote towers. Rock solid. 60+ days now. 11Mbps. 18
> miles.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
delivering 11Mbps at 18 miles.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>>
>> Yes, but the UBNT 3.65 radios are crap. Everyone we tried was
>> worthless. On the other hand, every Redline 3.65 radio whether RedMax
>> or AN80 has worked perfect.
>>
>
I think you may be missing a couple of variables in the multivariable
equation that determines the actual throughput a client can achieve in
a given time slice. When comparing access systems one must understand
the differences between the capabilities provided by the systems and
their resul
On Mar 19, 2009, at 3:18 PM, Chuck Bartosch wrote:
> However, that (obviously) means it's not particularly viable in many
> situations where you don't see enough customers to support a wimax
> base station. But because 3.65 with diversity is supposed to deliver
> NLOS performance similar to or be
Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> ------
> From: "Matt Liotta"
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 1:39 PM
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 2nd Look @ 3.65 ?
>
>> We are seeing
We are seeing around $500 ARPU and on average 6 customers deployed
per 7Mhz channel with our RedMax basestations. I see no reason to
complain.
-Matt
On Mar 19, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Good efficiencies, not enough throughput per channel, however.
>
> In one thread in one lis
Yes, but the UBNT 3.65 radios are crap. Everyone we tried was
worthless. On the other hand, every Redline 3.65 radio whether RedMax
or AN80 has worked perfect.
-Matt
On Mar 18, 2009, at 3:20 PM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
> Wow. I have 200 UBNT radios out there and not a single failure, not
There is also have a difference between accepted interpretations and
trying to argue new interpretations. I would say you an attorney if
you want to push through a new interpretation. While it may be
supported in current law, unless there is a precedent then you are
going to have to argue f
We've been using the AN80 3.65 PtP with great success.
-Matt
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:29 AM, Brian Rohrbacher wrote:
> Anyone using 3.65 for ptp? What is available? Can ubiquiti's
> cards be
> used in mikrotik?
>
> brian
>
>
> ---
On Mar 3, 2009, at 10:05 AM, Marlon K. Schafer wrote:
> I can't believe that NO ONE here has any input on this at all. Did
> my last
> post fail to make it through? Or should we not give any input into
> the
> process if given the chance? We'll just let the telco's get all of
> it then?
http://www.rapidlink.com/images/dallas.png
-Matt
On Feb 24, 2009, at 3:34 PM, Cameron Kilton wrote:
> I was down visiting some relatives in Irving, TX and noticed a few
> Trango units kicking around, anyone covering that area, just curios to
> who it is.
>
> Cameron
> Midcoast Internet
>
>
>
> -
On Feb 16, 2009, at 2:15 PM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
> So if your BGP upstream is using a old firmware and passed you this
> bogus
> path data your BGP session with them would flap.
>
That is not correct. Older firmwares were dropping sessions because of
this. Regardless, the route in question
essage-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 12:18 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] make sure
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.w
ge.
>
> http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html
>
> Rick
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:36 PM
> To: bwebs...@wirelessmapping.
h the form 477
> database would
> work nicely for that.
>
>
>
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org]on
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 4:10 PM
>
Where can I obtain broadband underserved data?
-Matt
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
WISPA Wireless List: wire
On Feb 12, 2009, at 3:55 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> And, CTI has published their exact pricing for the Trango. Why is
> nobody else putting out the DW price?
>
I don't know, but our last quote from CTI had the DW coming in less
than Trango.
-Matt
-
On Feb 11, 2009, at 5:02 PM, John Seaman wrote:
> Matt, there is no DFS detector in the Atlas5010. It was not a firmware
> issue, but rather a hardware limitation. That is why we released the
> 5055, aka the TrangoLINK-45 which is essentially the same product as
> the
> Atlas but has DFS supp
Trango has a way of destroying their reputation even when their
product is not at fault. We've had them offer us volume discounts only
later to see the same price offered without a volume requirement as
part of a promotion. I can't get a modern firmware for our older 5010s
that operate in 5
These are not officially available yet. Hence the lack of information.
I have a pair at our office for testing if anyone wants to swing by.
Unfortunately, I can't share any results at this point.
-Matt
On Jan 23, 2009, at 8:12 AM, 3-dB Networks wrote:
> Does anyone have the spec sheet? I se
On Jan 19, 2009, at 5:13 PM, Charles Wu (CTI) wrote:
> 3. No -- while you *could* do PtMP -- problem is antenna beamwidth
> requirements (and interference protection minimums)
>
Use the side lobes Luke.
-Matt
W
een adding up all your gross revenues from
> the
> customers and dividing by the number of customers. I had never heard
> of
> anything different. What are you hearing?
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>> We (the WISP industry) like to talk about ARPU a
We (the WISP industry) like to talk about ARPU a lot, but different
organizations define ARPU differently. So, my question is what do you
think the definition of ARPU should be?
-Matt
WISPA Wants You! Join today
If you are a leasing company why bother to extend leases to unknown
entities when your current customers are already profitable and
continue to expand their relationship? If I was the leasing company
that Travis used I would be much more interested in providing another
100k to Travis than 5
On Jan 1, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> If you port your number over, and that company goes out of business,
> you have a mess. :(
>
That is not true. All regulated telecommunication companies are
required to let your number port out except for a few specific
reasons. What is mo
These are not isolated incidents and affect many other companies even
if it doesn't force them to shut down. Nevertheless, I predict we are
going to see a number of companies with VoIP/LD exposure to go out of
business this year. Both Qwest and Global Crossing have raised rates
~30% yet man
These are not isolated incidents and affect many other companies even
if it doesn't force them to shut down. Nevertheless, I predict we are
going to see a number of companies with VoIP/LD exposure to go out of
business this year. Both Qwest and Global Crossing have raised rates
~30% yet man
Resellers play an important role in the overall ecosystem. However, as
an industry we would be far better off if we bought from each other
than from our competition. I believe that had CLECs worked with each
other as opposed to trying to steal each other customers they might
have made a den
I am looking for WISPs who can provide service in the following
locations:
Raleigh, NC 27606
Raleigh, NC 27612
Cary, NC 27519
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Mount Juliet, TN 37122
Franklin, TN 37067
Our customer is requesting a dedicated 3Mbps symmetrical service. We
plan on delivering a wired T1 to
not sure how I could even check
> from switch to switch? Each switch is in a different customer
> location all over town, and would require one of my techs to go from
> location to location and plugging in and seeing if they can get out?
> Is there some other way to "check
go...
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>>
>> A diagram would really help.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>> On Dec 11, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Travis Johnson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am still having a slight issue w
A diagram would really help.
-Matt
On Dec 11, 2008, at 11:39 AM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am still having a slight issue with a new setup of a Cisco VLAN.
> Here
> is how things are now:
>
> We have about 60 Cisco switches (3500 series) all connected together
> (one after another) in
VLAN150 still shows "forwarding"... and creates a loop on VLAN150.
> Where do I start? I'm not sure what to even look for or how to
> troubleshoot this?
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>>
>> Check and see if you are running PVST, which r
ireless Broadband Corp.
> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 9:26 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisc
Just be careful if they want to do there own VLANs. If they do you
will need to dot1q tunnel them. Cisco has made it easy in that all you
have to do in addition to what you do now with a single VLAN is add
the switchport dot1q tunnel command to their interface on either side.
The VLAN stack
Check and see if you are running PVST, which runs spanning tree on
each VLAN.
-Matt
On Dec 9, 2008, at 7:30 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> Ok... found the original problem... a few switches did not have the
> vlan
> setup in the vlan database. So the VLAN is up and working now... but
> the
>
8, at 6:36 AM, George Rogato wrote:
> Matt, how much is your bandwidth, say 100megs, in the Pittock?
>
> George
>
> Matt Liotta wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
>>
>>> *nods* I've looked at the Any2 Exchange here in Chicago.
>&
On Dec 8, 2008, at 11:16 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> *nods* I've looked at the Any2 Exchange here in Chicago.
> Unfortunately
> they only have like 3 participants.
>
> Despite their lower participant numbers, I'm looking to join non-
> Equinix
> exchanges here in Chicago (Any2 and ChicagoIX).
t;
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
> --
> From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 8:52 AM
> To: "WISPA Gen
We peer with every major content network. Most have open peering
policies that require little to get a peering relationship. Some
require specific amounts of traffic and/or multiple geographically
diverse connections.
Before you get your hopes up though I will warn you that connecting to
p
On Dec 2, 2008, at 12:33 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Who said anything about using 802.16? ;-)
>
> I generally don't install a customer that has signal worse than
> -80. I want
> to maintain full modulation as best as possible. Can't expect to
> service
> too many customers if everyone has -
t; SNR at
> the edge of the coverage area.
>
> Matt, I seem to remember a post from you recently where you were
> touting a
> link through 4 miles of tress with 3650. Was I not reading that
> correctly?
> Scriv
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Matt Liotta <[EMA
We see on average 9dB less signal with 3650 than 2400 NLOS with all
things being equal.
-Matt
On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:42 AM, John Scrivner wrote:
> Our coverage looks like 2.4 GHz coverage in the same environment
> with the
> exception of much lower noise floor which helps extend link budgets
On Dec 2, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Have we gotten any reports how 3650 works with foliage?
>
3650 sucks with foliage and more power doesn't help. Yeah it is that
bad.
-Matt
WISPA Wants You! Join
We did test them. I would rather not share bad experiences on a public
list. See you at ISPCON.
-Matt
On Nov 3, 2008, at 11:14 AM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> Matt,
>
> What does that mean? Have you tested it? Was it good or bad?
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Matt Liot
There is already an SR3 card. I would HIGHLY suggest you test it
throughly before deploying.
-Matt
On Nov 3, 2008, at 10:38 AM, Travis Johnson wrote:
> That would be great... but is there a time frame?
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
>> There are companies out there working on n
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/081030/neth134.html?.v=1
Watch out if you are single-homed to either.
-Matt
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
, 2008, at 6:24 PM, John Scrivner wrote:
> I voted for you Matt. Good luck. I hope you will mention WISPA if
> you get
> it.
> All the best,
> John Scrivner
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Voting is now open f
Voting is now open for the best of WiMAX World. It would be good PR if
WISPA could recognize one of its members as the winner. And of course
Rapid Link would appreciate it if you voted for us.
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=1tQ1xOpQ_2bZi4ts6kn6WPrg_3d_3d
-Matt
---
On Aug 26, 2008, at 6:56 PM, Ron Harden wrote:
> Yes, we source numbers from Level 3 and others. DID coverage is key
> to any
> successful digital voice program. There are some small mom-and-pop
> LECs
> that will not give up numbers because they a) don't want any
> competition,
> and b)
Yes, but you probably require a interconnect with the other carrier in
order to port the number. More to the point, VOX probably is reselling
Level3 or whoever that doesn't have an interconnect with the local LEC
and therefore can't port.
-Matt
On Aug 26, 2008, at 3:49 PM, Chuck McCown wrot
tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2008 12:11 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Cisco GSR Routers (for sale)
>
I figured I would mention. I have two GSRs (12008) that I am no longer
using that support full tables etc. I am happy to sell them for $3k
total or $1500 each. That is a no haggle below market price available
to folks on this list. They are currently being sold by a 3rd party
for $3k each.
7609 sup720-3bxl
-Matt
On Aug 12, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Gino Villarini wrote:
> Matt what you migrated to?
>
> gino
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: Matt Liotta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 7:29 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subje
On Aug 12, 2008, at 6:51 PM, Scott Lambert wrote:
>>
> What if you figure in the cost of a year or three of trying to feed
> the
> GSRs enough amps to keep them passing packets and enough amps to the
> air
> conditioner to keep them from melting?
>
For us it is irrelevant. We would need a VXR
The only 6500/7600 that can support full tables requires a
sup720-3bxl, which itself is much more expensive than a complete GSR.
-Matt
On Aug 12, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Bryan Scott wrote:
> You could also do a 6500 or 7600 with dual Supervisors & power
> supplies. Mine carries full routes, dual Gi
I don't think it is possible to buy VXRs with the right engine to
handle full tables that are cheaper than GSRs.
-Matt
On Aug 12, 2008, at 9:45 AM, Jeff Broadwick wrote:
> Hi Gino,
>
> GSRs are overkill for what you are doing. In the Cisco world, a
> couple of
> mid-range VXRs would be a be
More importantly you need to have 256MB of line card memory on each
card if you plan on running full tables. Make sure you get the GRP-B
route processors with ECC memory.
-Matt
On Aug 12, 2008, at 8:48 AM, Dylan Bouterse wrote:
> Make sure you're getting more than 256MB of RAM if you're doin
mpany at this point. I've done G.711 and T.38 with many
> softswitches and many ATAs. It's too finicky.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matt Liotta"
G711
T.38 is a crapshoot.
-Matt
On Aug 11, 2008, at 11:09 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
> Which do you do successfully?
>
> G711 faxing or G729 w/ T.38?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -
Fax is a requirement and most certainly can work with VoIP. As we
found out T.38 and G711 are mutually exclusive. T.38 is meant to work
over G729 as G711 is supposed actually carry faxes successfully.
-Matt
On Aug 10, 2008, at 9:22 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> Fax machines don't run over VoIP e
up.
>>
>> -Eric
>>
>> Gino Villarini wrote:
>>
>>> Please share performance info
>>>
>>> Gino A. Villarini
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
>>> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
>>&g
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 3:40 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] Redline indoor subscriber
>
> We just got our hands on the recently approved 3650 indoor subscriber
> unit from
I haven't looked at Appendix D in a while, but I don't think it takes
into account topology. Ground works really well at stopping noise.
-Matt
On Aug 1, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Charles Wyble wrote:
> Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote:
>> Charles...As I found out, Appendix D is just ONE way to do those
>>
Maybe they aren't a vendor member and decided to share a resource that
was relevant to the thread. Maybe they won't share on the next thread
because of your response. Maybe neither of our messages should need to
have been sent to the whole list.
-Matt
On Aug 1, 2008, at 6:28 AM, Jim Patient
On Jul 31, 2008, at 2:57 PM, John McDowell wrote:
> Sure, but only on a fixed basis. It is nothing compared to the
> International
> cellular market. If you look at the International Mobile WiMax
> footprint,
> its pretty dern small.
>
Well you could say the same thing about fixed vs mobile 3
On Jul 31, 2008, at 1:42 PM, John McDowell wrote:
> Without Sprint and Clearwire, WiMax has no chance at success, which
> leaves
> AT&T and Verizon ( who will come into Rural Markets eventually) and
> their
> LTE plans. To not support Clearwire, is to support AT&T and Verizon,
> two
> compa
On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:38 PM, John McDowell wrote:
> I think it is a boost for anyone wanting to deploy mobile wimax and
> bid on
> 2.5ghz spectrum.
>
How does the merger achieve that?
> The real focus that WISPA should take is ensuring that WISPs get a
> chance at
> the remaining spectrum a
reau's
> filings?
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matt Liotta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] 3650 FSS negotiations for protected areas...?
>
>
>&g
You can't use ULS for earth stations. Earth stations are covered by
the international bureau as opposed to the wireless bureau.
-Matt
On Jul 27, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Doug Ratcliffe wrote:
> I've read your blogs and have been keeping up with them. What I
> can't seem
> to find is the ULS regist
On Jul 24, 2008, at 6:53 PM, Matt wrote:
>> We have 60 mile Dragonwave systems out here. Saving 2-3K per month
>> pays off
>> a Dragonwave pretty quickly.
>
> How many Dragonwave hops? How much latency does it add in the end?
>
We have done several 70 mile 2 hop backhauls with a variety of ra
set boardConfig Buzzer 1
-Matt
On Jul 23, 2008, at 4:14 PM, John McDowell wrote:
> yeah, i tried it to...no workie
>
> I look through some of the manuals and see
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Gino Villarini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> Tried that, no workie
>>
>> -Original
On Jul 3, 2008, at 1:47 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
> Matt,
>
> Are you finding that the low noise floor (free spectrum) enabling high
> modulations are getting you the more CPE per sector, or are you
> finding that
> the WiMax protocol is delivering better results than other
> proprietary TDD
> b
00 - $1000 in lower quantities. I
> currently spend $150 per CPE. I could see going up to $200 or $250,
> but not
> any higher in 5 or less quantities.
>
>
> --
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
> - Ori
The WiMAX vendors are focused on the cost of the CPE; not the sector.
CPE can be had for anywhere between $200 and $500 currently depending
on vendor and volume. Vendors are working to get that price down with
a 12 month target of being under $100. The oversubscription you can do
on a WiMAX
On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:14 PM, Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE wrote:
> 3650 is a real PITA because of the grandfathered FSSes. I think,
> though, we might want to think about moving the full 50 mHz to
> restricted instead of unrestricted as I don't see unrestricted coming
> anytime soon.
>
Well there is a p
More importantly I don't want to be annoyed by spamcop messages. ;)
-Matt
On Jul 2, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Harold Bledsoe wrote:
> No, really, we didn't harvest anyone's email from any mailing
> lists. We
> are very careful to only market to customers of our companies
> (Deliberant, Ligowave, Wili
On Jun 17, 2008, at 7:10 PM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> I am far too lazy to look it up, but there have been multiple press
> releases
> on the same subject in the past, which has soured the group to
> RapidLink
> press releases.
>
There have never been multiple press releases on the same subject.
We have a large number of these radios in our network and are happy
with them. WIth that being said, make sure you understand that the
Trango link test uses 1600 byte frames. Most networks will make use of
1500 byte MTUs, so your practical throughput is going to be lower than
the results pr
On Jun 16, 2008, at 6:50 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
> Hmmm...I suppose this answers the original question. Rapid is NOT
> paying for the benefit (as a principle member) and you expect that
> your $250 makes up for your using this list as a PR list for Rapid
> (not WISPA).
>
What benefit exactly? You
On Jun 16, 2008, at 5:46 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Matt Liotta wrote:
>
>> To turn the thread around... Maybe WISPA should think about doing
>> its own PR. Don't you think seeing, "WISPA Member to be Featured at
>> Broadband Wireless World&q
e.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&q=%22rapid+link%22&ie=UTF-8&filter=0
. Even if there is some benefit I am missing I don't see why that is a
problem. What is WISPA if not for the benefit of its WISP members?
-Matt
On Jun 16, 2008, at 5:39 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Ju
To turn the thread around... Maybe WISPA should think about doing its
own PR. Don't you think seeing, "WISPA Member to be Featured at
Broadband Wireless World" on the wires would get more people paying
attention to WISPA?
-Matt
On Jun 16, 2008, at 5:32 PM, George wrote:
> I'm always intere
It is pretty normal for members of an organization to share PR with
others in the organization. Are you suggesting members should be
charged for sharing PR?
-Matt
On Jun 16, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Butch Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Mike Prachar wrote:
>
>> - Rapid Link's Lead Technologist
On Jun 12, 2008, at 4:47 PM, Larry Yunker wrote:
> When it comes to cross platform support, I would agree that Java
> wins out.
> When it comes to end-user software in a Windows environment, I would
> have to
> disagree and state that almost all recent (last 2 to 3 years)
> development
> ha
On Jun 12, 2008, at 4:28 PM, Larry Yunker wrote:
>>
> But JAVA requires that a Java VM be installed on the PC. The point
> is to
> avoid having to install a separate "Framework". Ideally, I'd like a
> linker
> that would just compile in those components within .NET that I rely
> upon.
>
T
On Jun 12, 2008, at 4:08 PM, Larry Yunker wrote:
> (1) For purposes of Deployment, this program requires .Net 2.0. The
> install
> program will check for the existence of .Net 2.0 on the target
> machine and
> will attempt to install it if it is not already installed.
> Unfortunately,
> .
nel Partners, Rapid Link is now offering voice and
> internet service via WiMax to the commercial public.
>
> Operating in the licensed-only 3650 MHz spectrum, customers can now
> enjoy guaranteed high speed connectivity, voice and internet bundled
> service, at the best cost/efficiency r
hat's my
> biggest
> issue here is noise.
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 8:31 AM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] LigoWav
; Aeronet Wireless Broadband Corp.
> tel 787.273.4143 fax 787.273.4145
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On
> Behalf Of Matt Liotta
> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 6:36 PM
> To: WISPA General List
> Subject: [WISPA] L
Our office is in the same city as Deliberant, so we have been able to
test their new proprietary PtP radios quite extensively. We don't test
for raw throughput; we focus on consistent payload with low latency,
low jitter and the ability to handle a lot of PPS. While I don't claim
to no the
101 - 200 of 783 matches
Mail list logo
